The effects of various receptor agonists/antagonists on the accumulation of inositol phosphates(InsPs) in cultured rat retinal pigment epitheium (RPE) cells were analysed. The results showed that serotonin and the 5-HT2 agonists such as alpha;-methyl-serotonin, quipazine, and DOI (1-[2.5-dimethoxy-4-iodopheny1]-2-aminopropane) all stimulated InsPs accumulation in rat RPE cells. The serotonin-induced stimulation of InsPs was effectively blocked by ketanserin, a 5-HT2 antagonist, but also attenuated by the active phorbol ester PMA (4ft-phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate), a potent protein kinase C activator.The data presented provide clear evidence for the presence of 5-HT2 receptors coupled to phosphoinositide metabolism on cultured rat RPE cells. （Chin J Ocul Fundus Dis,1994,10:80-83）
Objective To systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in preventing propofol injection induced pain. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from their inception to September, 2012 to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in preventing propofol injection induced pain. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of methodology. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 15 RCTs involving 1 413 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) the incidence of propofol injection induced pain in the 5-HT3 group was obviously lower than the control group (RR=0.14, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.21, Plt;0.000 01); b) as to the severity of pain, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (RR=0.84, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.26, P=0.39); the 5-HT3 group was obviously lower that the control group in the incidence of both moderate pain (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.34, Plt;0.000 01) and severe pain (RR=0.16, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.24, Plt;0.000 01); and c) as to the incidence of postoperative adverse reaction: the 5-HT3 group was obviously lower that the control group in the incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR=0.19, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.34, Plt;0.000 01) and shivering (RR=0.20, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.33, Plt;0.000 01) as well. Conclusion 5-HT3 receptor antagonists can effectively prevent the propofol injection induced pain, alleviate its severity, and reduce the postoperative adverse reactions. For the quantity and quality limitation of the included studies, this conclusion still needs to be further proved by performing more high quality studies.
Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluoxetine in treating premature ejaculation (PE). Methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fluoxetine treating PE published from July 1996 to May 2012 were collected in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CBM and CKNI. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 6 RCTs involving 221 patients were included finally. The results of meta-analysis showed that, as for effectiveness, there was no significant difference in the intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) between the two groups before the treatment (WMD=–0.21, 95%CI −4.79 to 4.37, P=0.93), but the IELT of the fluoxetine group was obviously longer than that of the control group after the treatment, with a significant difference (WMD=134.54, 95%CI 79.78 to 189.30, Plt;0.000 01). The results of sensitivity analysis indicated that the IELT of the fluoxetine group was longer than that of the control group, with a significant difference (WMD=155.19, 95%CI 130.64 to 179.75, Plt;0.000 01). As for safety, the fluoxetine group was higher in the incidence of adverse reaction than the control group, with a significant difference (OR=5.49, 95%CI 2.43 to 12.38, Plt;0.000 1). Conclusion Current evidence indicates that fluoxetine can improve the symptoms of PE patients, obviously prolong the IELT, and improve the quality of sexual life; and it is tolerable to patients with mild adverse reactions and is suitable for long-term intake. For the limited quantity of the included studies, we herein believe that, to obtain more evidence, it is necessary to further confirm the diagnosis and therapeutic criteria of PE, to design and conduct more multicenter and large scale clinical studies by adopting the internationally recognized indexes, and to perform a long-term follow-up．
Objective To observe the serum levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), platelet 5-HT and blood platelet count, emotion and burn injury healing of patients with moderate and severe burn injury and anxiety-depression symptoms. Methods In-patients with moderate and severe burn injury were selected from 2003.4 to 2005.2 and then divided into anxiety-depression group and control group according to their anxiety-depression scores by Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD ) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) 3 days after being burnt. Routine therapy was given to two groups, which lasted 1 month. Their scores of anxiety and depression and the degree of injury healing were observed, and the serum levels of TNF-α and IL-6, platelet 5-HT and blood platelet count were measured in the two groups. Results Fifty-one in-patients with moderate and severe burn injury were divided into the anxiety-depression group (24 cases) and the control group (27 cases). After 30-day treatment, the depression scores did not decrease in the anxiety-depression group (P=0.12), but the anxiety scores decreased (P=0.00). In the anxiety-depression group, the burn injury healing time was postponed (P=0.00), the serum levels of TNF-α increased (P=0.00), and the platelet 5-HT levels decreased (P=0.04) before and after treatment. Conclusion Depressive reaction occurs in patients with moderate and severe burn injury, which is a continuously negative emotion. It can lead to high levels of serum TNF-α, reduction in platelet 5-HT, and delayed burn injury healing time. Due to the limited sample size and different location of patients, there may be some bias in this conclusion. We are prepared to increase the sample size and select patients in the same region in further relevant studies.
Objective?To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5 HT-3 receptor inhibitor tropisetron injected in the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anesthesia. Methods?We searched the PubMed, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, and CNKI to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about tropisetron in preventing PONV after general anesthesia from January 1995 to September 2009. We also consulted references of the included studies for omission. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed and data were extracted according to the standard of the Cochrane Handbook 5.0.1. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 4.2.10 software. Results?A total of 17 RCTs involving 4 678 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: (1) Efficacy: tropisetron injected could decrease the incidence of PONV after general anesthesia (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.60), and decrease the incidence of PONV after general anesthesia with opioid drugs in patient controlled analgesia (RR=0.30, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.60); tropistron injected once or more could decrease the incidence of PONV in combination of PCA with tramadol (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.56; RR=0.10, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.19); and tropisetron combined with dexamethasome could also lessen the incidence of PONV (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.57). (2) Safety: Tropisetron injected could lessen the incidence of postoperative headache and dizziness (RR=0.35, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.75), but could not significantly decrease the pruritus and somnolence. Conclusion?Tropisetron injected can significantly decrease the incidence of PONV after general anesthesia, and it will not increase the adverse effect and the incidence of postoperative complications. Furthermore, it has also the advantage of decreasing postoperative headache and dizziness.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron hydrochloride injection for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods Searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biological Medical Database, Wanfang Database and VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database to find domestic and abroad published literatures of palonosetron used to control CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Two reviewers independently selected literatures, extracted data and assessed quality of the included studies by the Cochrane handbook 5.1. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results Twenty trials involving 4 919 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences between palonosetron and first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAS) in prevention of acute〔RR=1.09, 95%CI (1.40, 1.14),P=0.000 4〕, delayed 〔RR=1.26, 95%CI (1.15, 1.37),P＜0.000 01〕, and overall phase of CINV 〔RR=1.19, 95%CI (1.10, 1.30),P＜0.000 1〕. Subgroup analyses indicated that there were no statistical significances between palonosetron and granisetron (P=0.09) or ondansetron (P=0.08) in prevention of acute CINV, as well as between palonosetron and first-generation 5-HT3RAS in prophylaxis of moderately CINV (P=0.18), while there was statistical significance in favor of palonosetron in prophylaxis of delayed and overall phase of CINV. Compared with first-generation 5-HT3RAS, there were different in prophylaxis of highly chemotherapy-induced acute〔RR=1.10, 95%CI (1.02, 1.18),P=0.01〕, delayed〔RR=1.20, 95%CI (1.06, 1.36),P=0.005〕, and overall phase〔RR=1.18, 95%CI (1.04,1.33),P=0.008〕of CINV. In terms of safety, such as headache, constipation, diarrhea and dizziness, there were no statistical differences between two groups. Conclusions Palonosetron hydrochloride injection showed efficacy in prophylaxis of moderately or highly CINV, and didn't increase adverse events. Palonosetron hydrochloride injection is more better than first-generation 5-HT3RAS, especially in prevention of highly CINV, and can significantly improve the control rate of acute, delayed, and overall phase of CINV.